|
Grex > Oldcoop > #114: Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Proposal: delay before re-voting on a topic already submitted to vote
| 
Feb 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
This item is a marker to start the calendar ticking on a proposal to
require a delay of several months between member re-votes on the same issue.
I'm hoping that someone else will draft the language, since I'm kind of
busy right now.
|
| 79 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 1 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:06 UTC 2004 |
I propose that no member may bring to a vote any proposal that accomplishes
substantially the same objective as a previous proposal until at least 6
months after the end of voting on the previous proposal.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:19 UTC 2004 |
I would like to suggest that discretion be given the voteadm, subject
to review by the board in the event of complaint, to determine whether
or not to bring to a vote any proposal the voteadm considers to have
been made either with spurious intent or without reasonable expectation
of effecting change that would be supported by the majority of likely
voters on the issue.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 3 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:22 UTC 2004 |
While I understand the sentiment behind this, I'm not wild about it, I must
say. How about "no more frequently than once per quarter", which is
essentially 3 months.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 4 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:25 UTC 2004 |
Hrm, how about some guidelines for "reasonable expectation of effecting change
that would........"
Replace that with a "supermajority" rule of thumb. Like "any proposal that
won or lost with a margin of more than 60%".
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:27 UTC 2004 |
I think it would be more in keeping with Grex tradition and style to
give discretion with oversight rather than fix a hard limit in stone.
Besides, if we go with discretion, we don't have to define precisely
what is subject to the delay and what isn't. That avoids one path to
madness...
|
jp2
|
|
response 6 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
No. What failed was communication. The discretionary system worked
just like it is supposed to.
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
I like other's idea of giving discretion to the voteadm. THis needs to be
a bylaw amendment, since voting procedures are covered in the bylaws.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 9 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This proposal is an absurd attempt to limit free speech, and I hope someone
does something to stop it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 12 of 79:
|
Feb 9 20:56 UTC 2004 |
Here's my suggestion for wording the proposal. I actually thought about
entering this over the weekend, but decided to give Jamie a chance not to do
what he did. Oh well.
Proposal: the following paragraph should be added to Article 5 of the
CYberspace Communications bylaws:
d. If, in the opinion of the vote administrator, a proposed motion is
substantially the same as a motion the membership has already voted on
within the preceeding 6 months, the vote administrator may decline to
bring the motion to a vote. The proposer of the item may appeal the vote
administrator's decision to the Board of Directors. The Board's decision
is final.
|